similar to: [PATCH v7 00/10] x86: macrofying inline asm for better compilation

On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 5:26 AM Nadav Amit <namit at vmware.com> wrote: > > > On Dec 17, 2018, at 8:03 AM, Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro at socionext.com> wrote: > > > > This series reverts the in-kernel workarounds for inlining issues. > > > > The commit description of 77b0bf55bc67 mentioned > > "We also hope that GCC will eventually get

* Nadav Amit <namit at vmware.com> wrote: > > I ran some limited number of benchmarks, and in general the performance > > impact is not very notable. You can still see >10 cycles shaved off some > > syscalls that manipulate page-tables (e.g., mprotect()), in which > > paravirt caused many functions not to be inlined. In addition this > > patch-set can

On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 2:28 PM, Nadav Amit <namit at vmware.com> wrote: > This patch-set deals with an interesting yet stupid problem: kernel code > that does not get inlined despite its simplicity. There are several > causes for this behavior: "cold" attribute on __init, different function > optimization levels; conditional constant computations based on >

On Sun, Dec 16, 2018 at 12:29 PM Nadav Amit <namit at vmware.com> wrote: > > > On Dec 15, 2018, at 6:50 PM, Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro at socionext.com> wrote: > > > > Revert the following 9 commits: > > > > [1] 5bdcd510c2ac ("x86/jump-labels: Macrofy inline assembly code to > > work around GCC inlining bugs") > > >

* Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro at socionext.com> wrote: > This series reverts the in-kernel workarounds for inlining issues. > > The commit description of 77b0bf55bc67 mentioned > "We also hope that GCC will eventually get fixed,..." > > Now, GCC provides a solution. > > https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Extended-Asm.html > explains the new

Hi people, this is an attempt to see whether gcc's inline asm heuristic when estimating inline asm statements' cost for better inlining can be improved. AFAIU, the problematic arises when one ends up using a lot of inline asm statements in the kernel but due to the inline asm cost estimation heuristic which counts lines, I think, for example like in this here macro:

This series reverts the in-kernel workarounds for inlining issues. The commit description of 77b0bf55bc67 mentioned "We also hope that GCC will eventually get fixed,..." Now, GCC provides a solution. https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Extended-Asm.html explains the new "asm inline" syntax. The performance issue will be eventually solved. [About Code cleanups] I know Nadam

This series reverts the in-kernel workarounds for inlining issues. The commit description of 77b0bf55bc67 mentioned "We also hope that GCC will eventually get fixed,..." Now, GCC provides a solution. https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Extended-Asm.html explains the new "asm inline" syntax. The performance issue will be eventually solved. [About Code cleanups] I know Nadam

Revert the following 9 commits: [1] 5bdcd510c2ac ("x86/jump-labels: Macrofy inline assembly code to work around GCC inlining bugs") This was partially reverted because it made good cleanups irrespective of the inlining issue; the error message is still unneeded, and the conversion to STATIC_BRANCH_{NOP,JUMP} should be kept. [2] d5a581d84ae6 ("x86/cpufeature:

On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 12:48:45PM -0700, Nadav Amit wrote: > Nadav Amit (9): > Makefile: Prepare for using macros for inline asm > x86: objtool: use asm macro for better compiler decisions > x86: refcount: prevent gcc distortions > x86: alternatives: macrofy locks for better inlining > x86: bug: prevent gcc distortions > x86: prevent inline distortion by paravirt

On Mon, Jun 04, 2018 at 04:21:22AM -0700, Nadav Amit wrote: > This patch-set deals with an interesting yet stupid problem: kernel code > that does not get inlined despite its simplicity. There are several > causes for this behavior: "cold" attribute on __init, different function > optimization levels; conditional constant computations based on > __builtin_constant_p(); and

From: Nadav Amit > Sent: 17 May 2018 17:14 > This patch-set deals with an interesting yet stupid problem: kernel code > that does not get inlined despite its simplicity. There are several > causes for this behavior: "cold" attribute on __init, different function > optimization levels; conditional constant computations based on > __builtin_constant_p(); and finally large

4.4-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know. ------------------ From: H. Peter Anvin <hpa at linux.intel.com> commit 0e2e160033283e20f688d8bad5b89460cc5bfcc4 upstream. i386 and x86-64 uses different registers for arguments; make them available so we don't have to #ifdef in the actual code. Native size and specified size (q, l, w, b) versions are

4.9-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know. ------------------ From: H. Peter Anvin <hpa at linux.intel.com> commit 0e2e160033283e20f688d8bad5b89460cc5bfcc4 upstream. i386 and x86-64 uses different registers for arguments; make them available so we don't have to #ifdef in the actual code. Native size and specified size (q, l, w, b) versions are

4.14-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know. ------------------ From: H. Peter Anvin <hpa at linux.intel.com> commit 0e2e160033283e20f688d8bad5b89460cc5bfcc4 upstream. i386 and x86-64 uses different registers for arguments; make them available so we don't have to #ifdef in the actual code. Native size and specified size (q, l, w, b) versions are

4.17-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know. ------------------ From: H. Peter Anvin <hpa at linux.intel.com> commit 0e2e160033283e20f688d8bad5b89460cc5bfcc4 upstream. i386 and x86-64 uses different registers for arguments; make them available so we don't have to #ifdef in the actual code. Native size and specified size (q, l, w, b) versions are

Hi. On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 1:14 AM Segher Boessenkool <segher at kernel.crashing.org> wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 08, 2018 at 11:07:46AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote: > > On Mon, 8 Oct 2018, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > > > On Sun, Oct 07, 2018 at 03:53:26PM +0000, Michael Matz wrote: > > > > On Sun, 7 Oct 2018, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > > > > >

Hi. On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 1:14 AM Segher Boessenkool <segher at kernel.crashing.org> wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 08, 2018 at 11:07:46AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote: > > On Mon, 8 Oct 2018, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > > > On Sun, Oct 07, 2018 at 03:53:26PM +0000, Michael Matz wrote: > > > > On Sun, 7 Oct 2018, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > > > > >

This is a note to let you know that I've just added the patch titled x86/asm: Add _ASM_ARG* constants for argument registers to <asm/asm.h> to the 4.4-stable tree which can be found at: http://www.kernel.org/git/?p=linux/kernel/git/stable/stable-queue.git;a=summary The filename of the patch is: x86-asm-add-_asm_arg-constants-for-argument-registers-to-asm-asm.h.patch and

This is a note to let you know that I've just added the patch titled x86/asm: Add _ASM_ARG* constants for argument registers to <asm/asm.h> to the 4.14-stable tree which can be found at: http://www.kernel.org/git/?p=linux/kernel/git/stable/stable-queue.git;a=summary The filename of the patch is: x86-asm-add-_asm_arg-constants-for-argument-registers-to-asm-asm.h.patch and